Matilda
(Mathilde) of Flanders

Wife of William the Conqueror.

Matilda, the daughter of count Baldwin V of Flanders, was
married between 1049 and 1053 to duke William (II) of Normandy,
better known as William "the Conqueror", who became
king of England by conquest in 1066. On Whitsunday (i.e.,
Pentecost, 11 May in that year) 1068, Matilda was consecrated as
queen at Westminster by archbishop Ealdred ["On þisan
Eastron com se kyng to Wincestre, & þa wæron Eastra on .x.
kalendas Aprilis, & sona æfter þam com Mathild seo hlæfdie
hider to land, & Ealdred arcebiscop hig gehalgode to cwene on
Westmynstre on Hwitan Sunnandæg." ASC[D], s.a. 1067 [1068],
83; Douglas (1964), 213].

Date of Birth: Unknown.Place of
Birth: Unknown.

Date of Death: 2 November 1083.
Version E of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle states that Matilda died
the day after All Saint's Day ["... & on þæs ilcan
geares forðferde Mahtild Willelmes cynges cwen on þone dæg
æfter ealra halgena mæssedæg." ASC[E], s.a. 1083, 93].Place of Death: Unknown.

The parentage of Gundreda, wife of William de
Warenne, earl of Surrey, and in particular, the claim that she
was a daughter of Matilda of Flanders, was controversial during
much of the nineteenth century. Prior to 1846, the common belief
was that Gundreda was a daughter of William the Conqueror and
Matilda of Flanders. In that year, a variant of the theory
appeared when Stapleton published an article [not seen by me]
claiming that Gundreda was a not a daughter of William, but of
Matilda by an earlier marriage to Gerbod, advocate of
Saint-Bertin, by whom she also had two sons, Gerbod, earl of
Chester, and Frederick. This version of the theory got a big
boost when it was accepted by Freeman in his history of the
Norman Conquest [Freeman (1870-9)]. However, in 1878, Waters
published the letter of Anselm (see below), a key piece of
evidence which clinches the negative case. [Note: I have not seen
the publications of Waters on the subject, and I am relying on
their description in Freeman (1888) and EYC.] Following the work
of Waters, Freeman reversed his earlier opinion in an article for
the English Historical Review in 1888 [Freeman (1888)].

The early evidence which would appear to
directly link Gundreda with either William the Conqueror or
Matilda all comes from three charters (or alleged charters) from
Lewes Priory in Sussex. The one direct link between Gundreda and
William appears only as a late addition to a charter of William
the conqueror, in which the words "filie mee"
have been added in a later hand over an erasure after Gundreda's
name [Monast. Angl. 5: 13 (#4), not noting the interlineation, or
the later hand; EYC 8: 56 (#4)]. The other two relevant charters
appear to suggest that Gundreda was a daughter of Matilda. In a
false charter of William de Warenne, he appears to make Matilda
the mother of his wife [".. pro salute domine mee
Matildis regine, matris uxoris mee, ..." Monast. Angl.
8: 12 (#2); Cart. Cluny 4: 691 (#3561); for the falseness of the
charter, see EYC 8: 59-62], and another charter (to be mentioned
further below) has the following phrase: "Karletuna quam
dedit Matilda regina mater Henrici et Gundredæ comitissæ; et
ipsa Gundreda dedit nobis: locata fuit pro x. libris."
[Monast. Angl. 5: 14 (#6, Norfolk)] Gundreda's tomb, of which the
first words are "Stirps Gundreda ducum", has
also been used as evidence supporting a connection to William the
Conqueror.

The evidence that Gundreda was a sister of
Gerbod the Fleming is clear. The relationship is attested by both
Orderic Vitalis ["... et Guillelmo de Guarenna qui
Gundredam sororem Gherbodi coniugem habebat ..." OV
Book iv (2: 264)] and by the chronicle of Hyde abbey ["Quo
tempore comes Cistrensis decessit Gerbodo, frater Gundradæ
comitissæ, Flandriamque veniens, inimicorum præventus insidiis
miserabiliter periit." [Chron. Monast. Hyde, 296].
Thus, since the words "filie mee" mentioned
above, being in a later hand, have no force, it is not surprising
that this evidence was combined to suggest that Matilda had an
earlier husband by whom she was mother of Gerbod and Gundreda.
For the elder Gerbod (the suggested father of the younger Gerbod)
and Frederick (possibly another brother), see the discussion by
Clay [EYC 8: 44-6].

However, in the original foundation charter for
Lewes priory, William the Conqueror mentions William de Warenne
and his wife Gundreda without any indication that Gundreda was
related to William or Matilda ["In nomine Domini nostri
Ihesu Christi ego Guillelmus Dei gratia rex Anglorum inspiratione
diuina compunctus, pro incolomitate regni mei et salute anime
mee, rogantibus etiam et obnixe postulantibus Willelmo de Warenna
et uxore ejus Gundreda ..." EYC 8: 54-5 (#2); Cart.
Cluny 4: 688 (#3559)]. This, along with the weakness of the
positive evidence, would be enough to cast doubt on the
relationship, for the late addition of "filie mee",
the false charter of William de Warenne, and the statement on
Gundreda's tomb have little strength. In addition, Waters pointed
out that the other piece of evidence, apparently making Gundreda
a daughter of Matilda and sister of Henry I, should probably be
read without the et between Henrici and Gundredæ,
leaving Gundredæ comitissæ to be in the dative case
rather than the genitive, and thus acting as the indirect object
of dedit [i.e., "Karletuna quam dedit Matilda
regina mater Henrici Gundredæ comitissæ; et ipsa Gundreda dedit
nobis: locata fuit pro x. libris." (Carlton, which
queen Matilda, mother of Henry, gave to countess Gundreda, and
which Gundreda gave to us, is "locata" for £10)].

The decisive negative evidence, as pointed out
by Waters, is a letter from Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury, to
king Henry I, in which Anselm forbade the marriage of Gundreda's
son William de Warenne the younger to a daughter of the king,
because they were related in the fourth generation on one side
and the sixth generation on the other ["Quærit
consilium celsitudo vestra quid sibi faciendum sit de hoc quia
pacta est filiam suam dare Guillelmo de Vuarenne; cum ipse et
filia vestra ex una parte sint cognati in quarta generatione, et
ex altera in sexta." Anselm, Epistolæ, iv,
84, PL 159: 245]. If Gundreda were a daughter of Matilda, then
she would be a sister (or half-sister) of Henry, making the
prospective bride and groom first-cousins, in which case Anslem
would have certainly objected on that point, rather than bringing
up a distant relationship. It is now regarded as settled that
Gundreda was a daughter of neither William nor Matilda, although
the error reappears frequently in amateur genealogical databases,
and has even been made recently by one "standard"
source [ES 2: 81]. [Freeman (1888) and EYC 8: 50-6 are good
sources discussing the evidence and the history of the
controversy. See also the notes on Gundreda at Chris Phillips's "Some Notes on Medieval English Genealogy" website.]